What does it mean to be an artist?Does it mean not to rely on popular conventions? Does it mean making decisions about what you do that are the result of your own personal ideas?
How can this distinction be made if all of us are the result of the societies we live in?
What is the ideal artist? Is it a person that builds structures and opinions about the world (that do not rely too much on popular opinions and conceptions but also do not become too personal and obscure) and uses those structures of ideas to create things inspired by these ideas?
Art IS usually identified with something personal, often complex, requiring thought.
Entertainment is usually associated with ideas everyone can understand and process with almost no thought.
What do you think?
Should an artist work by creating things intuitively without much thought? is an artist simply a channeller of secret social desires and conflicts?
If art is the product of a combination of intuition and technical skill should an artist then live life a certain way to ensure he is in tune with the zeitgeist? Is an artist an artist inherently and completely(to be an artist you must be a certain kind of person leading a certain kind of life) or not at all?
And should "complex" art be appreciated as an ideal to strive towards or is it simply art adjusted for the developed tools and standards of criticism(i.e. works that are designed specifically to be analyzed by those analysis theories that are available?) mastered by art critics?
If so what is its opposite? A piece that is completely unplanned created quickly at a moment of inspiration?
If the common folk find it beautiful and are amazed, then its good art, imo. I think the art "culture" personifies itself as some high brow elite circle. I think this kills art.
If an average joe can look at art and immediately feel it, then the artist is a genius. The measurement of ones art should be based on those who know nothing about technique, conceptions, structures.
Art these days feels like its in its own bubble, which is not good. This is why I think art, such as tattoos and graffiti, have grown in appreciation over the years.
Thank you for assuming, it speaks miles about you.
Indeed, I do enjoy some modern art, but my opinion still stands, and it's an opinion that I've personally heard from other artists. I think there is something to a person like for Van Gogh who decided to paint working people in setting. It can have an immediate response from masses. Everyone is free to enjoy what they enjoy, I'm just stating my own opinion (hence why I wrote "imo").
Well the reason why i disagree is that you cannot compare painting before cinema and photography to painting afterwards.
Cinema and photography killed mimetic painting.
Painting had to find different niches that were beyond mimicking reality.
There is no point painting landscapes if you can simply photograph them.
Yes you can stylize them through painting but it does not hold the same worth as it did before photography.
Not art form can stay the same once a new one appears.
Painting was always niche and elitistic since painting as a medium is not for mass consumption or ownership, unlike movies that are inherently appropriate for mass consumption.
I dont know what retarded artists you have been talking to. probably those who had no education in art or philosophy.
If you can use oil paints or own a high quality screen for painting it still does not make you an artist in the sense of having a historical social and philosophical perspective on the matter.
Art is the controlled channelling of Dionysus